Karaoke Forums

I can understand the points that both of you are making, but I am unfortunatly no good at putting quotes on forums, so I guess I will just have to copy paste

@Virgin your bolded quote
[n34] although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter.

I bolded the most important part of that statement. Presumptively in a judicial context is not a statement of fact or policy, It is saying that the justices would be leaning in that direction unless proven otherwise. Such as a person in a criminal trial is presumptively innocent, until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fact of the matter is that there is no case law that covers this scenario, so it could go either way. with that said

@singyo
Realistically I don't see this issue coming up before the high court any time soon, and a lower court would most likely use the rulings mentioned here from the high court to rule in favor of the companies over KJs. It is doubtful that the case would go any farther than the court of appeals. Going through the audit process may not be a legal requirement, but having an agreement with the company to not get sued is definitely not a bad thing, save you a ton in legal fees, even if you did somehow win.

I can understand the points that both of you are making, but I am unfortunatly no good at putting quotes on forums, so I guess I will just have to copy paste

@Virgin your bolded quote
[n34] although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter.

I bolded the most important part of that statement. Presumptively in a judicial context is not a statement of fact or policy, It is saying that the justices would be leaning in that direction unless proven otherwise. Such as a person in a criminal trial is presumptively innocent, until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fact of the matter is that there is no case law that covers this scenario, so it could go either way. with that said

@singyo
Realistically I don't see this issue coming up before the high court any time soon, and a lower court would most likely use the rulings mentioned here from the high court to rule in favor of the companies over KJs. It is doubtful that the case would go any farther than the court of appeals. Going through the audit process may not be a legal requirement, but having an agreement with the company to not get sued is definitely not a bad thing, save you a ton in legal fees, even if you did somehow win.

OK let's be clear here, it is not the law or ASCAP or BMI that are preventing those tracks from being licensed for commercial use, it's Sound Choice. The fact of the matter is Sound Choice has the ability to license their material however they choose. Regardless of how you get the music, whether it's on CD or in an MP3, ASCAP and BMI are going to make sure that the artists get their royalties. Look at a regular album track for instance, you can buy it as an MP3 from Amazon or buy it on a disc, either way you now own a license of that track. However, if you play it in a public setting, the artists get compensated for that "Public Performance" through ASCAP, BMI or whatever group they work with.

Sound Choice's dilemma is this, they don't get compensated by ASCAP or BMI for the music. They are not the original artists and therefore do not get the royalties. So THEY WANT to get paid for "Public Performance" as well. However, the only thing they have a right to claim royalties for are the sweeping lyrics as that is the only part that is technically their original work (even though the words themselves are not). Unfortunately for them ASCAP/BMI are not interested in collecting royalties for artistic works beyond music and therefore will not collect for Sound Choice or the rest of the Manus. There are no similar groups that are willing to do this for them at this point.

So Sound Choice's decision has been to force KJ's to buy discs, with mostly useless songs that will never get sung because their profit margin is much better that way. This is why they've fought so hard against format shift as well because they make more money if you're forced to buy another copy of a CD if it gets damaged.

Now for those of you that are going to say well that's wrong because Sound Choice says this or that, listen to or read what they have to say very carefully. They speak in misleading ways but if you pay attention to the letter of what they say you'll see it all fits the exact situation above. They try to deflect blame over and over again toward the artists, ASCAP, whomever but the fact of the matter is if that the only difference between a downloaded track being licensed for private use and for "commercial" use is a decision made by Sound Choice based on profitability.

@Virgin Karaoke

I can understand the point you are making. The issue at hand is format shifting. If I purchase a CD-G, which the company allows for commercial use, and I shift that to a digital format, while still owning and maintaining possesion of said CD-G, and I use that for commercial use as well, the courts have NOT ruled on if that is allowed. Now, if say SoundChoice, decided to sue me for Copyright, or Trademark Violation, because I did not secure permission from them to shift formats before I did so, then I would stand a good chance of winning the case (provided I can prove to the court that I had owned and maintained a 1:1 ratio) Now, I would say there is an extremely high probability that once I did show that I owned origional CD-G's then SoundChoice would drop the suit.

And that is exactly what would happen as soon as you did the Audit you would be dropped, SC has made that statement many times!


and as far as the point made about how it doesn't protect you from being sued by the original artist...of course not. No company can give you a guarentee that another company will not sue you for ANYTHING. They can only make binding agreements for themselves

Someone who actual reasons things out!


But theoretical arguments aside, I will definitely be going through the audits, just to not have to deal with any of it.

BANG ZOOM>>>

that is a good point as well, if you have a hard drive, that you are using for a commercial enterprise, and another hard drive, which you keep as a back-up but do not use as part of a commercial enterprise, would that be considered infringement?

The question is, regarding 1:1, how many of you out there are actually 1:1, that is your library of discs on one harddrive? I bet many have one or more back ups of their harddrive and therefore are not 1:1 but 2 or 3 or more to 1. Therein lies the problem.

The question is, regarding 1:1, how many of you out there are actually 1:1, that is your library of discs on one harddrive? I bet many have one or more back ups of their harddrive and therefore are not 1:1 but 2 or 3 or more to 1. Therein lies the problem.

Joe that was the point I was making. If you didn't have permission from SC, but DID have a legitimate cd for every song on your hard-drive, maintaining a 1:1 ratio, I don't think they would "win" a civil suit against you. This is the way I see this happening....(hypothetically of course, as I have already stated I personally intend to go through the audit once I have all my gear)

SoundChoice: You need written permission to rip to a hard-drive, otherwise you have to "buy" the gem series.

Me: Bugger off, I bought all my cds and am not making multiple copies, so leave me alone and go after the pirates.

SoundChoice: You need to come in and go through an audit, if you do so, we promise we wont sue you

Me: No, go ahead and sue me, you eeeeevil corporate thug (i have a tendency to be overly dramatic)

SoundChoice(to themselves): I bet this little bastard is a pirate himself, why else wouldn't he just go through the audit, okay we will sue him.

(in the courtroom now)
SoundChoice: Your honor, this guy is pirating our music, also he is a big meanie and called us corporate thugs.
Me: to the first part, Nuh uh, see I brought all of my Cds and my one hardrive that I shifted too, and for the corporate thug thing, sorry, I was all jacked up on mountain dew.
SoundChoice(to themselves again): Ok, so the guy isn't a pirate, and if we pursue this and lose then lots of other people are gonna challenge us and we won't be able to make lots of money off the gem series, and we will have a tough time getting actual pirates off the street.
SoundChoice(to judge): we are withdrawing our complaint
Judge: Case Dismissed

Me(jumping up on the table): OH YEAH, F- YO COURT
Judge: bailif put this man in jail for contempt of court

and that is how I (hypothetically) won a case against a major Manu, and still ended up in jail, I hope that clears everything up...

man I really got to stop posting things on the internet after consuming enough caffine to give a mastadon a heart attack